just wondering what peoples thoughts are on the taboo subject of drugs in sports. personally it doesnt bother me, mainly because i know its very very common and it seems to be the way the world is these days. everyone wanting maximum results in less and less time. then when you add in large amounts of money like there is in elite level sports it becomes even worse. i do agree that it is a shame for athletes that are not willing to take anything, but my opinion is that you shouldnt bother going into it these days if thats the case. i dont think people that take them are bad people, i know many many people that take performance enhancing drugs and also recreational drugs, iyts just a shame that everyone has to lie about the subject. if they were allowed/legal in sports then people wouldnt have to lie to the fans and could just get on with being an athlete. the other problem is that kids will assume that they have to have these things to get anywhere in their chosen activity, its an awkward situation i know, thats why i started this topic to get other peoples ideas. i also think people, meaning fans, put huge stress on the athletes......because lets face it who wants the see cyclists in the tour de france pushing their bikes up the big hills, or usain bolt running 10.5 100ms. i dont, i want to see people like lance armstrong destroying people up some of the best hills in the world, and usain bolt making other sub 10 second 100m runners look slow. so should they be allowed, shouldnt they be allowed? all the governing bodies seem to be corrupt as none of the top money makers ever get positive tests but alot of the unheard of ones do, as if to try and prove the point that they are testing..... without losing out of any money from a positive test from a superstar.....i suppose it all boils down to money as with everything in this world. again iam not biased in way to drug takers or naturals. its more than likely that all of the people i look up to in sports are on some kind of PED. and in some cases lorries loads of the stuff. well if you made it this far through the post then thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings! look forward to some replies!

_________________"iam the strongest one! iam the viking!" - jon pall sigmarsson“may all of your dreams and ambitions happen, but most important, may all of your enemies die"www.infowars.com

I listened to a podcast with Dorian Yates and I pretty much agree with his opinion: take the drugs out of the equation and the best would still be the best.It's a shame that every elite level athlete is drugged, but that's what the sponsors want.

Agreed with what mrbear666 said. Drugs in sport are here to stay, and sadly, if a professional athlete who is world-class in any sport that requires maximal speed, strength or a combination thereof says they're drug-free, it's 99.9% likely that they're lying to you.

It's a shame when things happen like the baseball witch-hunts that single out only a few players when the majority are using, just as it's terrible that Lance Armstrong was singled out when, as it's commonly said, if you make it to compete in the Tour de France, it's assumed that you're already taking a lot of drugs just to have gotten that far. Someone like Armstrong would have been the best regardless of whether everyone was drugged or everyone was clean, but since he was at the top, all the others could do was try to destroy him out of jealousy while trying to keep their own actions hidden. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that, for all he's gone through, the rest of the non-clean people who worked to take him down go down with him. What's fair for one is fair for all, and just because he was the naturally better athlete shouldn't have made him the focus while leaving the heat off everyone else who competes and isn't clean.

Unless they can clean up sports entirely (which they can't), I don't see why there's any fuss over pretending that some people should be targeted for their choices while the vast majority slip through without notice because they're not at the top of the game. I don't plan on using anything in this lifetime, but of course, if playing my sport professionally were my livelihood and millions of dollars were on the line, I can't say that I wouldn't fall prey to temptation. If there were a company waiting on the sidelines with a multi-million dollar check for my endorsement of their sports products, I'm sure there'd be a LOT of struggle over how to make sure I'd stay at the top when knowing that drugs were pretty much the norm and that I wouldn't be doing anything different from what the rest of the competitors were doing. It's always easy for people to say "I'd NEVER use anything that artificially enhances my performance!", but I can only assume that the people who say that have never had a large amount of money on the line if they were to go that direction and make it to the top

_________________"A 'hardgainer' is merely someone who hasn't bothered to try enough different training methods to learn what is actually right for their own damned body." - anonymous

Meh, taxate drugs and they won't be 'drugs' they'll be 'supplements'. It's all about public opinion, that's why alcohol and cigs are allowed and considered 'means of endulgence' despite their detrimental affect on the human body while cannabis is an outlawed drug. I don't advocate one or the other (I neither drink, smoke or do hormones) but never cease to be amazed by the hypocrisy in legislation.

Meh, taxate drugs and they won't be 'drugs' they'll be 'supplements'. It's all about public opinion, that's why alcohol and cigs are allowed and considered 'means of endulgence' despite their detrimental affect on the human body while cannabis is an outlawed drug. I don't advocate one or the other (I neither drink, smoke or do hormones) but never cease to be amazed by the hypocrisy in legislation.

It would make the most sense, but sadly, the government here in the USA is far from logical in almost all regards Whatever seems to be a clearly better way to do things is the OPPOSITE of what they'll implement - instead of taxing the items at hand since they're not going anywhere (which would also take out the back-alley criminal element and offer a better guarantee of purity of substance for general safety), the government is much more likely to start a new 100-person committee that'll spend 4 years and $50 billion to say "We can't fix the problem" and consider it a roaring success that warrants a follow-up study on the backs of the taxpayers. At least, that has been the trend for as long as I've been walking the earth!

_________________"A 'hardgainer' is merely someone who hasn't bothered to try enough different training methods to learn what is actually right for their own damned body." - anonymous

Yeah politics generally suck and more than often just epitomises human demise. Not saying anarchy is the way to go, but for some odd reason (well not odd just too comprehensive to get into here) "democrasy" in terms of public benifit and forreign policy is represnting "demos" less and less and "crazy" more and more.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum